[Dave Lev (OP)]

It is.
The hint is in the name.
A super massive black hole is a black hole.

No
It is a fatal error to claim that each BH behaves as a SMBH.
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force and Ultra high EM power.
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon.
The particles that are ejected into the accretion disc, orbit at almost the speed of light with temp of 10^9c.
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?
If so, please offer real observation for the activity at their accretion disc near the event horizon?
Do we observe there particles that orbit at the speed of light (near their event horizon) while their temp is 10^9c?
Please offer the observation & measurements and backup this understanding by real article.

I think this comment of yours is slightly dumber than your idea that things fall up.

As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.

[Bored chemist]

A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force

Once you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.

You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.

Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon

Any BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.

The particles that are ejected into the accretion disc, orbit at almost the speed of light with temp of 10^9c.

No.
That's stuff falling in.
Remember things fall down, rather than up.

Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?

You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?

[Bored chemist]

As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.

The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.

[Kryptid]

I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.

We've never seen that happen either.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.

The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.

Comparing SMBH to BH is like comparing Lion to Lion Cub.
So based on your idea the difference is that the Lion has more size than the Lion Cub.
Is it all?
Do you really think that they behave the same?
If you look at a Lion Cub, can you estimate how a real Lion would behave?
Would you dare to stay next to a Lion as you stay next to a Lion Cub?
Hence, although both objects carry the name of Lion, they behave totally differently
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at the Lion Cub and expect that the Lion would behave the same..
In the same token, although BH and SMBH carry the name of Black Hole, they behave totally differently.
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at a BH and hope that a SMBH will behave the same.
No, they are totally different!!!

Do you know that "Thousands of Black Holes May Lurk at the Galaxy's Center"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy

Are you sure that our scientists really know how all of those BHs had been created and how they all have got to the center of the Milky way?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?

You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?

No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.
We might think that a SMBH had been evolved from a BH but as it gets to be a SMBH it behave differently.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon

Any BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.

The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.
However, there is no negative mass in our Universe.
As Hawking radiation is based on the idea of negative mass, it's better for you to set this theory in the garbage.
We all know that any particle is all about EM.
Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force

Once you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.
You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.

The main difference is not just in the gravity force, it is all about EM power.
This EM sets the real difference between the two objects.
So, we can see many BH's in our Universe, however how many of them have the real EM power?
How a BH get's this strong EM ability?
Our scientists claim that our SMBH is a rotatable BH and therefore it can generate its Ultra high EM power.
For quite long time I have asked myself how a BH starts to rotate?
Now, with your help - I have got the answer for this key question.
It is all about Gravity wave.
So, once two BHs start their merging process, they actually orbit around each other.
As they get closer, their orbital velocity is increasing.
At the moment of the merging, their orbital velocity is maximal.
They would continue to keep the momentum of that rotation which will help them to generate Ultra high EM.
If this EM + their gravity force is high enough to generate new particle pair, they would evolve to Magnetar, Pulsar or even a SMBH that could carry billions of his babies stars and BH's in its own galaxy as our mighty SMBH does.

[Kryptid]

But we don't need to see.

So then you agree that you don't have to observe something directly in order to infer its existence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.

The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.

Comparing SMBH to BH is like comparing Lion to Lion Cub.
So based on your idea the difference is that the Lion has more size than the Lion Cub.
Is it all?
Do you really think that they behave the same?
If you look at a Lion Cub, can you estimate how a real Lion would behave?
Would you dare to stay next to a Lion as you stay next to a Lion Cub?
Hence, although both objects carry the name of Lion, they behave totally differently
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at the Lion Cub and expect that the Lion would behave the same..
In the same token, although BH and SMBH carry the name of Black Hole, they behave totally differently.
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at a BH and hope that a SMBH will behave the same.
No, they are totally different!!!

Do you know that "Thousands of Black Holes May Lurk at the Galaxy's Center"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy

Are you sure that our scientists really know how all of those BHs had been created and how they all have got to the center of the Milky way?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?

You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?

No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.
We might think that a SMBH had been evolved from a BH but as it gets to be a SMBH it behave differently.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon
Any BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.

The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.
However, there is no negative mass in our Universe.
As Hawking radiation is based on the idea of negative mass, it's better for you to set this theory in the garbage.
We all know that any particle is all about EM.
Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force

Once you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.
You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.

The main difference is not just in the gravity force, it is all about EM power.
This EM sets the real difference between the two objects.
So, we can see many BH's in our Universe, however how many of them have the real EM power?
How a BH get's this strong EM ability?
Our scientists claim that our SMBH is a rotatable BH and therefore it can generate its Ultra high EM power.
For quite long time I have asked myself how a BH starts to rotate?
Now, with your help - I have got the answer for this key question.
It is all about Gravity wave.
So, once two BHs start their merging process, they actually orbit around each other.
As they get closer, their orbital velocity is increasing.
At the moment of the merging, their orbital velocity is maximal.
They would continue to keep the momentum of that rotation which will help them to generate Ultra high EM.
If this EM + their gravity force is high enough to generate new particle pair, they would evolve to Magnetar, Pulsar or even a SMBH that could carry billions of his babies stars and BH's in its own galaxy as our mighty SMBH does.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:34
I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.

We've never seen that happen either.

I agree
It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon.
But we don't need to see.
The accretion disc is the ultimate evidence for that creation process due to the following:
1. In the inner side of the accretion disc the particles orbits at almost the speed of light and their temp could be much higher than 10^9c.
2. At the outer disc we clearly see real atoms and molecular. They orbit at 0.3c and their temp is 10^9c.
So, by the time that the new created particle spirals from the inner side of the accretion disc to the outer side, they had been transformed to real atoms and molecular.
3. Those molecular would be ejected outwards (as the observable UFO) to the Bulge and be joined together into gas clouds.
4. Under the gravity force of the SMBH, those gas clouds would form new star systems.
Not just one star with planets and moons around it, but several stars systems that are connected by gravity force.
5. Each star, each planet, each Moon would be created from the same gas/matter in that gas cloud.
Therefore, each planet and each moon starts its life as a huge gas ball. Over the time, the smallest objects would evaporate more than 98% of their early light gas as Hydrogen and be transformed into rocky objects as our planet and moon.
Therefore, our planet and moon have so nicely ball shape while the center of the Earth is still so hot.
6. Please be aware that the gravity force of the Moon-Sun is more than twice stronger than the Earth- Moon gravity force. So, we can ask why the moon orbit around the Earth instead around the Sun. However, if you add the missing 98% light gas to the Moon and planet you would find that at the creation time of the solar system the Earth-Moon gravity force was stronger than the Sun-Moon gravity force.
7.. We have never ever observed any stuff that falls into that accretion disc.

Therefore, all the observations proves that the SMBH' accretion disc gets its matter from inside!

[Bored chemist]

Yo missed one.

It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon.

...
8. It does not happen, because it's a figment of Dave's imagination and breaks the conservation laws.

it is all about EM power.

This is the name you gave to the magic you invented.
There's nothing special about the electromagnetic fields of a big black hole compared to a small one.
Again you are seeking to beak the law of physics, in this case, Maxwell's laws.

No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.

I presume you realis that means "pretty nearly indistinguishable from a distance".

Seriously, you are claiming there's a difference, but you have provided no evidence, not so much as a wiki link.

No, they are totally different!!!

Putting  three exclamation marks makes you look crazy, but it doesn't make things true.


I'm beginning to see why you refused to say you wouldn't tell lies.

[Bored chemist]

The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.

Yes, as long as the BH evaporates at the same time, otherwise you break the mass conservation law and that's not possible.
We know this.
It has been proven mathematically.
You keep ignoring this fact.

This is presumably because you don't care about reality.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!

Yes; and we know  from experiments like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
that , even in "empty" space there is always an EM field.
You do not need a black hole- not even a little one.

You keep ignoring this fact.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.

Yes, as long as the BH evaporates at the same time, otherwise you break the mass conservation law and that's not possible.
We know this.
It has been proven mathematically.
You keep ignoring this fact.
This is presumably because you don't care about reality.

Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?
As you claim that you know this., then please show the observation.

Sorry - this is the biggest imagination of the modern science.
Please answer the following:
Do you agree that based on Hawking idea in order for a BH to be evaporated a creation of negative mass is needed?
Yes or no please.
If so, do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?
I assume that you believe in that nonsense due to your wrong mathematics.
Sorry, as long as we can't see that imagination - we all must agree that there is no Negative mass in our Universe.

[Bored chemist]

Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?

No, of course not.
It's like expecting to see a black cat in a dark cellar.
Nobody would be so stupid as to expect to see that.

do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?

Again, of course we don't. No sensible person would expect that we would.
But we do have its "cousin".

" Currently, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:22:51
Do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?

Again, of course we don't. No sensible person would expect that we would.
But we do have its "cousin".
" Currently, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass

Sorry - "In our universe, There is no such thing as negative mass":
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/icore/quantum_universe/sites/icore.scb/files/mmr_2_bqnshtyn.pdf
"Antimatter does not have negative mass. In our universe, there is no such thing as negative mass. Mass only comes in positive form. In contrast, electric charge can be positive or negative. The nonexistence of negative mass has profound consequences.

If this isn't good enough, please read the following:

If vacuum energy can be negative, why is mass always positive?http://www.weizmann.ac.il/icore/quantum_universe/sites/icore.scb/files/mmr_2_bqnshtyn.pdf
"We recall, and justify in detail, the not so familiar subdominant trace energy condition for ordinary (baryon-electron nonrelativistic) matter. With its help we show, in two ways, that the mass energy of the cavity structure necessary to enforce the boundary conditions must exceed the magnitude of the negative vacuum energy, so that all systems of the type envisaged necessarily have positive mass energy"

Therefore
There is no Negative mass in our entire Universe.
The Hawking radiation which is based on negative mass is a fiction.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:22:51
Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?

No, of course not.
It's like expecting to see a black cat in a dark cellar.
Nobody would be so stupid as to expect to see that.

We have the tools to verify the total mass of a BH.
If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.
Therefore, we do not need to wait until it will be totally evaporated. We can see that activity is an action - if it was real.
However, as the Negative mass is a pure imagination, then the evaporation of a BH due to the Negative mass in Hawking radiation is also imagination.
Somehow in order to qualify the impossible, you use again and again the example of a black cat over a dark cellar.
It's better for you to agree with what we see and accept the idea that what we see is what we have.

[Kryptid]

If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.

Please explain how we could measure such a tiny loss of mass over the span of a single human life time.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.

Please explain how we could measure such a tiny loss of mass over the span of a single human life time.

I agree. It might be very difficult.
Never the less, based on real science - there is no negative mass.
Therefore, we don't need to measure the mass of a BH in order to understand that the evaporation of a BH due to Negative mass is just a fiction.
If some of our scientists believe in that fiction, they have to find the way to prove their imagination about negative mass.
Without it, we all must reject the imagination of negative mass as explained by the above articles that I have offered.

[Kryptid]

I agree. It might be very difficult.

You said that it could be done. Tell us how.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I agree. It might be very difficult.

You said that it could be done. Tell us how.

Sorry. It's my job and I have also said that we don't need to do so as I have proved that there is no negative mass.
However, it was an advice for those scientists that believe in the existence of Negative mass.
So, only those scientists that believe in Negative mass have to find the way to justify Hawking radiation & BH evaporation

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:07:48
It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon....

8. It does not happen, because it's a figment of Dave's imagination and breaks the conservation laws.

Why is it?
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?

[Bored chemist]

Never the less, based on real science - there is no negative mass.

What science are you basing this claim on?

Please show links to the research which says it can't happen.

[Bored chemist]

"We recall, and justify in detail, the not so familiar subdominant trace energy condition for ordinary (baryon-electron nonrelativistic) matter.

We are not saying that the negative mass is ordinary mass.
We know that has positive mass.

The paper is interesting, but does not apply to the unusual matter we are talking about.

Nice try.